KHIZAR HAYAT and another vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge imposing the full surety amount on the petitioners following their failure to produce two accused persons, Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad, who were involved in a murder case and had been released on bail. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted legally in forfeiting the surety bond when the sureties failed to produce the accused and failed to substantiate their claim that the accused had died in a land mine blast. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's order was legal, speaking, and free from jurisdictional defect. The Court observed that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence to support their contention regarding the death of the accused, noting that the accused were Afghan nationals who likely returned to their home country. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upheld the forfeiture of the surety amount, and directed the petitioners to deposit the amount within one month, failing which they would be taken into custody and the amount recovered as arrears of land revenue.
- Can a surety be held liable for the full bond amount if they fail to produce the accused in court?
- Is a trial court's order forfeiting a surety bond subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction if it is a speaking and legal order?
- What is the legal consequence for a surety who fails to produce an accused person after being summoned by the trial court?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- It is a revision petition against the impugned order whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed full surety amount on the sureties/petitioners who had failed to produce accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad, involved in a murder case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, contends that both the accused had died due to the blast of a land mine, they wanted to produce evidence before the learned trial Court but were not afforded opportunity and passed the impugned order.
3. Heard. Petitioners stood surety for accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad who were accused in a murder case and were allowed bail after arrest by this Court. When the challan was submitted and when they were summoned to face the trial, both accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad did not appear upon which proceedings were initiated against the sureties/petitioners. The petitioners took up the plea before the learned trial Court that both the accused, had died due to the blast of a land mine, they wanted to produce evidence before the learned trial Court but were not afforded opportunity. But the fact remains that both the accused were residents of Afghanistan and after their release on bail they must have gone to Afghanistan.
The stand taken by the petitioners before the learned trial Court as well as before this Court does not appeal to reason as they have failed to produce any evidence in support of the said vehement contention. In the afore-referred circumstances I am of the affirmed view that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect to warrant interference with the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court which is a speaking and legal one, so, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge within four days from today. The petitioners are directed to deposit the surety amount within a month from today failing which they shall be taken into custody and the said amount of surety shall be received as arrears of land revenue.